Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes to Muslims in the West, nothing is a more sensational visualsymbol than the hijab. Due to the current Muslim and non-Muslim fixationon it, scholarly examination of hijab and related issues is necessary.The Muslim Veil in North America examines some of its historical, sociological/anthropological, and theological aspects. Part 1 engages with theveil’s hyper-visibility in Canada. Since the book does not engage with theAmerican experience, I am not sure why the title refers to North America.I enjoyed part 2 immensely, and will use it as a reference on the subject.The bulk of this section explores the historical development of the veil’stheological status and nature. This book is different from, say, Maudoodi’sPurdah, which sees the veil in its contemporary form as a product of historicalprocesses.This book is dedicated to diasporic Muslim women, although introductorymaterial in various chapters addresses readers unfamiliar with Islam. Undergraduates will appreciate its accessibility in comparison tomost academic texts, and it will make the subject comprehensible to layreaders. Unfortunately, this means that the book wavers between being anacademic (education, anthropology, and sociology) and a lay read. This isnot because the entire book is tailored to different kinds of readers, butbecause its two parts are rather disjointed. Part 1 addresses a more lay andintroductory social science-related reader with basic information; part 2, onthe other hand, is a highly specialized examination of exegetical and hadithhistory.The editors, in addressing a gaping void in the literature, possiblyattempt to do too much: specialized theology, history, politics, anthropology,and sampling of “voices.” I would have preferred it to be more selective.Also, “let the voices speak” is a commendable approach, but after a certainpoint we should go beyond it. There is also a line between “reportage syndrome,”writing without an adequate theoretical framework, and skillfulacademic writing, which allows contextualized voices to be heard by fellowacademics within the social sciences. I would also have preferred that thetheology and sociology chapters be connected by common threads ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".